Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review

The E-M1 is the second model in Olympus's OM-D series and extends the range further into semi-pro/enthusiast territory. There are two main distinctions that set the E-M1 apart from its little brother (the E-M5) - a more sophisticated autofocus system and a 'buttons for everything' design approach. As such the two models will coexist, with the E-M1 sitting at the very top of Olympus's lineup.

The biggest technological step forward on the E-M1 is the addition of on-sensor phase detection elements, giving the camera two distinct focus modes. The phase-detection system is used when lenses from the original Four Thirds system, which were designed for use that way, are attached. With native, Micro Four Thirds lenses, the camera will mainly stick with the contrast detection system that has proved so fast and accurate on the E-M5. Only if you use tracking AF will the camera utilize phase-detection information with a Micro Four Thirds lens.

The E-M1 also gains the excellent 2.3M-dot electronic viewfinder panel we first saw as the VF-4 accessory for the PEN E-P5. Not only is the resolution very impressive, but the viewfinder optics give a viewfinder with magnification of up to 1.48x (depending on display mode), which puts it only a fraction behind the 0.76x viewfinder in Canon's 1D X and ahead of Nikon's pro-grade D4 DSLRs.

There's also a more advanced 'TruePic VII' processor in the E-M1 that conducts a variety of lens corrections, when creating JPEGs, leading the company to proclaim the best image quality offered by one of its cameras. Not only can the E-M1 remove the colour fringing caused by lateral chromatic aberration, Olympus says that it also tunes its sharpening to take into account the lens's sharpness, and to combat any softening due to diffraction (particularly at very small apertures).

The biggest difference between the E-M1 and the E-M5, though, is the degree of direct control on offer. We really liked the E-M5's twin-dial control system, but the E-M1 goes beyond that by providing button-and-dial combinations for quickly changing almost every imaginable setting on the camera. It's the kind of approach you don't usually get until the very top of manufacturers' lineups - it means you have to get used to where every function is, but can shoot fluidly once you have.

The E-M1 inherits the '2x2' dial approach Olympus previously used on the E-P5 - flicking a switch on the camera changes the dials from controlling shutter speed, aperture or exposure compensation to changing ISO and white balance. However, all this direct control doesn't come at the expense of the potentially slower but easier to find touch-screen interface - the E-M1 has this too. Overall the camera can be operated pretty much however you fancy.

Built-in Wi-Fi for remote shooting and image transfer to smartphone or tablet

Dust, splash and freeze-proof (to -10 °C)

Gained over the E-M5

True Pic VII processor, with lens corrections

1/8000 sec top shutter speed, 1/320 sec flash sync

Built-in microphone socket (rather than optional accessory adapter)

Flash X-sync socket

Built-in Wi-Fi

Focus 'peaking' display

In-camera HDR blending (two modes), previewed in viewfinder

Four Thirds is dead. Long live Four Thirds.

As well as representing the highest-end Micro Four Thirds camera yet, the E-M1's role is also about offering continued support for users of the original Four Thirds SLR system. Olympus created some very nice Four Thirds lenses, but the company struggled to make enough impact in the SLR market to justify the cost of continuing development for both systems in parallel.

The company claims to have studied what the E-M1 and a hypothetical 'E-7' SLR could offer, and concluded that, while image quality, durability and speed would have been the same, the OM-D design allowed both a substantial size advantage and a much greater viewfinder magnification than would be possible with an optical finder. As such the E-M1 should be considered the successor to the E-5.

We'll look at the performance of the camera with Four Thirds lenses in a little more depth later in this article. But in principle, the on-sensor phase detection autofocus system should be much more effective than contrast detection when it comes to controlling Four Thirds lenses, all of which were primarily designed to be driven by phase detection-based systems.

Comments

Hi, I'm a bit late to the battle, and I know it's probably in your schedule (I mean at DPReview), but it would be nice to include cameras with older sensor designs, to have a means to follow the evolution, the comparison is just not as accurate when looking up cameras on the previous chart and the new one.I guess that really is a workload, so good luck.

I've read many posts of people wondering whether the IQ OF EM1 is superior to that of EM5. I was wondering about the same thing. I suggest you take a look at Robin Wong's review of EM1 (and comparison between EM1 and EM5). I believe the answer to this question is there. Unfortunately up until now i can only read the review (and particularly the part 5 where the comparison is being done) only when i use my android phone to enter the site (can't access the review when using my pc). Probably in a few days it will also be available for pc users...Hope this helps!

currently using a film contax g2 (LOVE IT) and a nikon D200 (looking for a replacement for the D200)

Hard to say, value is in the pocket book of the buyer. I've not touched an EM1 but have an EM5. My take is the E-M1 has largely fixed most of the niggles of the first generation E-M5 and added some new features. The EVF is reputed to be much better, more controls, 1/8000 second shutter, IBIS is reputedly improved over the already very good IBIS in the M5. I have the grip for the EM5 and find that really improves handling, but it also bridges the cost gap. OTOH, without the grip the EM5 is certainly smaller. I really like the E-M5 and probably won't upgrade (I say knowing I'll get GAS). Unless the money difference really matters I'd probably go for the E-M1. Though investing in good lenses is always a good investment. In the short run, I'd rather have the E-M5 with good glass than the E-M1 with the basic kit lens. Just some thoughts.

Is it my eyes or is the EM5 sharper (according to test chart above). No matter which part of the chart I use as long as I keep the ISO at 800 or lower this appears to be the case. Only when I set the chart to higher ISO values does the EM1 outperform the EM5?

Did someone post down below (or was it somewhere else) that the 75/1.8 is made by Sigma? Is it true? (seems unlikely to me.

....BTW For those here who may wonder where I've been since last year, my absence has been caused by an illness that involved major surgery (to the brain x2 and countless bouts of radiation and chemotherapy. If I ever get out of this wheelchair, I still hope to get some more usage from my OMD, 75/1.8 and several other m4/3 lenses . With partial paralysis in my left arm and hand, I may have to teach my wife how switch lenses or just use the one that's already mounted when I leave the house. I don't want go back to a P&S but who knows?

Welcome back to life. It must be daunting to go through all those therapy.

Never mind whether the 75mm f/1.8 is made by Sigma or not. It does not look that way but even if it is, it is probably just a business arrangement. Even Zeiss lenses are made by Cosina to their quality standards. Most important, the 75mm f/1.8 is still the best Micro 4/3 prime so far.

I think the next large step would be to remove the mirrors from DSLRs and improve EVF to the point where the responsiveness of an OVF would provide no better advantage. If Canon or Nikon would introduce a full frame with these mirror less features, the think the market would react favorably.

It sounds more like what software programmers call spec creep. These may have been on the wish list for the precursor and now u can pay for them at a 45% hike. None of them are deal makers unless u own original 4/3 lenses. Then I'd say inquire within. The VF-4? Come on. That's should be free. I don't like marketing which in the case of the E-P5 says u can have this $279 item gratis if u take the 17 off our hands. They're piling up in the warehouse at AMZN. These differential upgrades are silly. And consumers aren't asking for that. We're looking for real improvements in end products not itsy bitsy dinky upgrades. The retro look? Please.

I think You never shoot with an Olympus Camera, otherwise You woldn't no go confusing and say "None of them are deal makers unless u own original 4/3 lenses" The Camera is designed for micro FT with a special to use also FT Lenses. And You also dont know the advantage of the Cropfactor of 2 instead of omnly 1,3 ... 1,4 You know?

This is a very attractive camera, but aside from looks, why would anyone spend this much when for less than half the money you can get the equally small Canon SL1 or T4i, with a much wider range of lenses, bigger sensor and faster AF, more resolution, better battery life and an optical viewfinder! Doesn't really make any sense for a photographer to pick the Olympus.

really? - you are comparing a pro grade camera with pro build and functions to an entry/mid level DSLR and wonder why it costs twice as much.

Im not saying its cheap, but it certainly should cost more than those 2 plastic boxes.

If you dont know why you would use the E-M1 over an SL1 or T4i, then certainly its not for you... and an SL1 or canon rebel would suit you better, but there are other people who have different needs and are willing to pay for them.

You can't compare a Pro grade level camera with an entry level camera, even if it is a DSLR.

For a similar Pro grade DSLR, one would have to go for the Canon 1DX with the 24-70mm f/2.8 L Mk2. It may have slightly better tracking focus but it will cost you about $5,000.00 for the body and another $2,300.00 for the lens eventhough you are willing to take the weight.

For people who want a lighter weather proof camera with a similar focal lenght lens, this camera is it. And it will only cost you about the price of the 24-70mm f/2.8 L Mk2 lens making the combo actually quite affordable.

An excellent combo if you are trotting the globe. Picture quality is not far off from a full frame DSLR.

@White Shadow, agree except the C-AF tracking is not "slightly worse". The top line 35mm C/N tracking is state of the art and in some fields this is a very meaningful benefit over what the E-M1 can accomplish.S-AF could be described as excellent, possibly tops, but C-AF should be described as good. It was quite poor in the E-M5, so that is very positive and I believe it will continue to improve as O is clearly interested in improving this. Something that interests me is this suggests new potential over what would have been possible with analogue based PDAF performance in the 4/3 format, which was always inferior compared to its implementation in the 35mm format due to reduced sensitivity....

Olympus is definitely trying their best to improve the tracking focus capability of their Micro 4/3 cameras to be competitive. Thus, the EM1 has in-chip PDAF as well as CDAF. One can feel that it is faster than previous Micro 4/3 cameras like the EM5.

However, it is still not fast enough if one is to track a bird flying pass. Maybe Oly may have to introduce some fast telephoto lenses in future with Ultrasonic Motor. For fast tracking focus, one still have to use a Canon 1DX with an EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS lens, for example.

Incidently, I have tried using the classic Oly 150mm f/2.0 lens on the EM1 and found it to hunt a bit despite its improved capabilty. Its far from what one would experience with the Canon 1DX. A lot of improvement needed here.

For now, the Micro 4/3 system is definitely not good enough for sports. However, the EM1 would make an excellent travel camera.

And they apparently cut a deal with Sony to get it (on sensor PDAF tech), an indication of just how serious was their perceived need for it. I do think this needed improvement will come and it's possible it will even surpass what is possible in off chip PDAF in the not too distant future...

You mean the (4/3) ZD 150mm f2.0, the 'classic' OMZ 150mm f/2.0 was a MF lens, available in white or black ;) There was also an OMZ 250mm f/2.0 and an OMZ 350 f2.8.

S-AF is faster on the E-M1. E-M1 sensor scores much higher than either camera you mention on DXOmark. This is just the tip of the iceberg. But if you want to buy a plastic box with a 5-year-old sensor in it, Canon has a tourist special to fit your budget.

The EM5 is noticeably sharper/cleaner than the new EM1 and I am just guessing that the difference is that (despite the click-on lens info box), the shots of the EM5 were taken with the Oly 50mm f2, as other commentors have noted, and this is a sharper lens than the 45mm.

Really, please check the details, this would turn me off on the EM1 if I thought the info was correct. I have the EM5 and I don't want to go backwards on quality despite the great new features of the EM1. I am otherwise ready to pre-order the new body. gp

A natural evolution from from EM-5, with some great adictions, better EVF, better grip, virtually no CA, better detail IQ, better stability, better AF, better noise at high iso, and so on..., well done Olympus, Just please, down the price and will be an instant hit. I Like this E-M1.

If you buy it with the Kit in australia who are also giving you the grip rebate. You are paying only like $600 for that lens. For that money it is definitely the best m/43 zoom lens for the money and may very well be the best value vs cost 2.8 zoom lens of any system full stop.

Can anyone address what the Histogram is doing? Apparently there are FOUR colors displayed WITHIN the Histogram. Here is the bit from the E-M1's Manual:"Histogram display: Display a histogram showing the distribution of brightness in the image. The horizontal axis gives the brightness, the vertical axis the number of pixels of each brightness in the image. Areas above the upper limit at shooting are displayed in red, those below the lower limit in blue, and the area metered using spot metering in green."

Question: What are the Upper and Lower limits referred to here? Interesting!

I think we fairly regularly point out the ability to set the upper and lower limits, since those then feed into the 'highlights and shadows' display mode. This marks areas above the upper brightness threshold as red and those below the lower limit as blue - at the point you shoot.

An Oly E-3 owner here who has waited ... patiently ...for this, the EM-1. A load of wonderful glass in my bag, and finally, truly innovative hardware to make better use of. So much nonsensical prattling over what is professional equipment, what is not. In the end, it is the creative mind behind the viewfinder. Photography is not my full time profession, but I do make a good income from prints and photo shoots. New, unique, and leading edge. I love what I see. My order went in today!

If one is thinking of going Micro 4/3, this is probably the best Micro 4/3 camera to date. The icing on the cake is the marvellous 12-40mm f/2.8.

This is a Pro standard camera made to the likes of the Canon 1DX, only to a smaller format. The body with the 12-40mm lens is weighty but not heavy and balance well while shooting. This is important if one will be using it regularly. Unlike the EM5, the grip is comfortable. It is completely shower proof. So, one can walk in the rain without worrying about it.

The built-in sensor phase detect AF has made quite a lot of improvement to tracking focus. Although it is fast, it still can't match the speed of the Canon 1DX but definitely faster than any mirrorless camera.

SOOC image quality is surprisingly impressive. Shooting up to ISO 3200 do not pose any problem at all. Even ISO 6400 is very useable.

I own two E-Series bodies and half a dozen 4/3 lenses. I played with a friend's E-M5 recently and loved it but would have never have purchased one because of lack of real compatibilty with my old lenses. The E-M1 now provides a fabulous upgrade path to leading edge technology and easy entry into m4/3 while protecting my investment in glass. I am now saving up to get an E-M1 soon. Smart move, Olympus. Thank you!

For those who have tried the EM-1 would definitely agree that it is the best Micro 4/3 and mirrorless camera to date. It perform very well with the new 12-40mm lens and also reasonably well with the classic 4/3 lenses. Focusing is fast and one will have the opportunity to use the high grade 4/3 lenses. Optically, they can be said to be the best even when compared to Canon L lenses. The 14-35 f/2.0 is one of them.

It is a good thing Olympus is making this premium model. It has been long overdued. When Micro 4/3 was first introduced it was targeted at amatuers and beginners. Until recently, most of the Micro 4/3 lenses were made to a compromised quality although some still maintain their standards, namely the 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6 and the 20mm f/1.7 which came with the Lumix GF1. The subsequent models from both Olympus and Panasonic were made to entry level standard with the exception of some primes.

Amateurs may consider the EM-1 and the new lens to be expensive but for what they are, they are actually quite cheap. One can have the whole combo for about the same price as the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L MkII which is about $2,300.00.

The main advantage is one is getting a professional grade camera and lens in a small package. Although APS-C cameras and lenses are cheaper, they are not made to this standard.

It is really weather proof; water resistant, dust resistant and freeze proof.

Is the e-m1 all olympus could do for those enthusiast who waited so long time to see the e-m5 sensor on a full 4/3 model in substitution of the extra aged E5?I'm so disappointed with it that I'm selling my E3 with grip, 12-60and 50-200 swd lenses plus 50r shv1 on ebay. If their choice is to cut out professionals, that's right. Bye bye baby.Nikon never did such a bad joke to his lenders (all of us), the epilogue is that I will never get an olympus camera anymore.

Unless I've missed something, everyone seems to be dancing around the issue of whether the E-M1 will properly phase detect AF with a Lumix Leica 14-50mm f2.8-3.5 or any other Lumix 4/3 lens. One report I read said the camera will only work properly with Olympus 4/3 lenses. Any clarification on this?

Please Test the Olympus OMD E-M1 on the OLDER Studio target. I just spent over 1/2 hour on the "new" target and realized I cannot determine even 1/10 of the information I was able to glean from the OLDER Studio target.

Please do not shortchange your readers with this new target!!!!

Besides which, many of the cameras I need to compare to the E-M1 are not in the new target camera selector -- and may not ever get there -- Sony a99.

Your Olympus E-M5 Raw files show they are taken with a 45mm f1.8 when you hover over the 'i' button for information but when you download them they have been taken on a 50mm f2. You need to either reshoot them with a 45mm f1.8 or reshoot the E-M1 files with a 50mm f2.

Google the youtube clip of William Shatner on Saturday Night Live. He is at a trekkie convention, and he tells all the trekkies that are idolizing him to go out and "GET A LIFE."Seeing all of these comments kind of reminds me of that clip. I guess that makes me one of the trekkies. Time for me to get away from my computer and go shoot some more photos.

I think DPR has spent WAY too much time talking about 4/3 lens AF. The review is unclear as to whether 4/3 or m4/3 lenses are discussed. Please redo this -- I think most users want to know about m4/3 lens' AF!!!! I saw a review video on this camera and when the 4/3 lenses came up there was a cutaway showing a guy blowing a HUGE cloud of dust off of the 4/3 lens box. I think that is quite apt and the DPR review does not reflect the majority of E-M1 usage. Leave the 4/3 lens stuff off to a sidebar!

How do you figure that? Are you invested in lots of their lenses? I can recall a few years ago everyone stated 4/3 was dead/dying and m4/3 was the way to go. I didn't make up the comment about the dust -- look here:

Why is it a big deal ? - it not only improves CAF focussing for ZD lenses but also for m.zd lenses too, so even people without ZD lenses should see a benefit.

Secondly as you said if you are invested in ZD lenses this will give those users a new body, updated with the latest tech with familair AF performance. Sure it is not the same as a 4/3 SLR, but its an alternative

If you remove the PDAF then all you have is a slightly larger EM-5 with add on grip, minor updates. So you see PDAF is the most notable feature.

I was not criticizing the E-M1 -- I see the need for PDAF, rather DPR's apparent preoccupation with 4/3 compatibility in the partial review we now have. This might be just me -- as I have no Olympus equipment at all -- I need to realize that lots of others looking at E-M1 might have loads of $$ invested here in Oly.

Question: There was discussion in the Review about some close misses in terms of customizable buttons and switches. It was also stated the V-Grip's button customization is independent of the Body's assignments. Does the Accessory Vertical Grip alleviate some of the confusion about custom button assignments?

Hello guys! First time i post bere... So many comments! After being a Pentax user for a long time, i switched to m43 (pen). I really like this e-m1, but i hope olympus will make a 4/3 version as well. Same electronics, no mirror, same evf, only a mmf-3 permanently mounted and a built in pop-up flash for the 4/3 customers. Maybe a more standard (modern) DSLR body design will be welcommed by some users.

Using the new Lightroom 5.2 I just loaded the EM-1 Raw files from DRPreview and compared them to the EM-5 Raw files both lit with tungsten lighting. Does not help the EM-1 shots are using a 45mm f1.8 and the EM-5 are with a 50mm f2 when you compare detail. Basically you can’t. The good news though is the EM-1 is better on noise. If you look at 3200 and 6400 iso and compare the two cameras the blacks are far more clean on the EM-1. It makes 6400 very useable now and improves 3200.

The really interesting is comparing EM-1 6400 iso to 5D MKIII 12800 iso Raws. Very similar. Canon shows a tiny bit more detail but the noise is a tiny bit higher as well. Really only going to notice it at 100% though which in real world use is not important.

The camera can be setup to shoot up to 7 exposures with a 2ev increment - brilliant for me shooting HDR panoramas, no longer any need to adjust the shutter speed manually anymore!!! Now, will my Olympus Fisheye work with the adapter....

But... As I understand it (and this is the way it works on the EM-5) you have to press the shutter button all seven times without the benefit of the 2 second self timer and each press causes camers shake on the tripod.

Kay, if you set it to sequential mode and hold down the shutter button, it fires off the series in a snap. Consider getting a cable remote for the tripod shots, though. Third-party ones are fairly cheap. (I suppose on the E-M1 you could also just use your smart phone/tablet as remote)

I am seeing a growing and unsettling trend in DPR reviews -- no picture of the focus points. In this review, I had hopes, as you showed the legacy 4/3 phase detection points. Where are the m4/3 Contrast AF points? You have also missed this important depiction in many other reviews to the point where I have to go looking elsewhere to find it. DPR is deviating from what used to be an all-inclusive review to one of smart phone connections and some other stuff. You spend an entire page or two on all sorts of irrelevant-to-me connections to some smart phones while ignoring a far more fundamental topic. Is DPR is becoming a smart phone accessories forum? I'm not going to bother checking back for your Conclusion, because, well, without the smart phone, why bother?

First time posting and simply want to share candidly without any attempt to convince anyone of my beliefs or opinions.

I've been a professional photographer for over 35 years and was originally a Nikon user back in the days of the F2/F3/F4S. With the advent of auto-focus, I tried the EOS 1 system and immediately sold my Nikon gear, lenses...everything. Since that time, I have been a die-hard Canon EOS, 5D/7D user and most recently, the Sony NEX 7.

I will purchase this new Olympus OM-D E-M1 for the following reasons:

1. I've always had great respect for M. Zuiko lenses. Truly great optics.2. Although I like the physical size and portability of the Nex 7, I miss the ergonomic feel and familiarity of shooting with an slr type camera. I also now understand that it's not just about the megapixel count, but also about the optics (Zuiko)3. The E-M1 appears to be a well built camera and simply (imho) the best designed dslr camera I have ever seen. Can't wait to get my hands on one!

Well said from an intelligent open minded individual. Look at the camera based on all its merits, not just sensor size. Sensor Size complaint is quite trivial with modern sensors in all but the extreme ISOs.

I tried it today and can confirm what you say. Best ergonomics ever, particularly with the vertical grip. It even bests my previous favourite, the F6 in this respect. I won't sell all my Nikons, mostly for nostalgic reasons, but for most of my work, the E-M1 is a vastly more practical camera and as is mentioned above: The optics are second to none.

Oh my goodness! Nikon and Canon users are a demented lot and anyone using any other brand is bad as a smart phone photographer and we all know how demented the are. They're as bad as those vidiographers who aren't real photographers anyway. Now we're all offended. My Olys suit me perfectly and the images they make please the folks I work for and the folks I share with. What is demented about that? Wonder how many writers sit around telling each other that they are silly for using this or that type of ink pen or word processing software. Really?

I personally think that Nikon and Canon should put together something more high end or fully featured in the world of compact system cameras. What they have released so far, is less than spectacular to excite the enthusiast buyer public and lack of sales may confirm it. A well specified APS-C mirrorless camera with features, that you could add adaptor for Nikon glass would be best. Nikon 1 is not selling well as expected (fast AF but needs bigger sensor and more controls and better menus) and neither is Canon EOS-M which has bigger sensor but has slow AF. I imagine that their next versions should be better featured, so I can add my Nikon glass with adaptor to the next Nikon mirrorless sensor camera maybe with PDAF on sensor provided sensor finally gets bigger for a Nikon ILC. Until then Olympus looks great and competes well with APS-C formats, and is a good balance of features, great image quality and compact lens sizes!

Ah, amnother poster who "thinks" less glass/metal means the lens is "worth" less.They'll buy an f150 truck rather than a Ferrari because more metal for the money is "better".Making excellent small things is harder and costs MORE, not less.

Some people appreciate the price of everything and the value of nothing.

More compact cameras often translate into more/better photo opportunities.

Katsuhiro Takata (the designer of the infamous Oly 4/3") said "If we are only looking at image performance, then a larger sensor is naturally advantageous. On the other hand, if we want to reduce the size, then the image sensor should be small. What is the ideal sensor size to obtain satisfactory quality from a portable size? Getting the balance right between quality and portability was our biggest problem."

in other words, 4/3" was not meant for high quality but right balance. but Oly 4/3" was really a bad design for it was designed for "digital." since digital products changes very fast, the designs also age very fast and Oly 4/3" was really designed for digital of 1990s and born as a unbalanced, low efficiency system from day one.

m4/3" corrected many of the mistakes but the basic idea is still there: a lower quality system at premium price.

The thing with m43 is that it is heavily dependent on software correction, without it, the lenses are horrid. e.g. have you seen the 14/2.8 uncorrected?? It looks like a fisheye lens. Another e.g., the "Olympus" 75/1.8.. hugely expensive and previously set as the pinnacle of Oly engineering and thus priced appropriately.. until people found out that its a Sigma lens. If the same lens was branded as a Sigma it would be 1/2 the price.

So, you see... m43 equipment is overpriced and not because its harder to engineer small things.

"The thing with m43 is that it is heavily dependent on software correction, without it, the lenses are horrid. e.g. have you seen the 14/2.8 uncorrected?? It looks like a fisheye lens. Another e.g., "

In body software correction is the future. It makes more possibilities in lens designs.

"the "Olympus" 75/1.8.. hugely expensive and previously set as the pinnacle of Oly engineering and thus priced appropriately.. until people found out that its a Sigma lens. If the same lens was branded as a Sigma it would be 1/2 the price."

There is no way of knowing that. Maybe it's a Sigma design, but that is just a rumor. The price is high, but it's a great design and the competition is more expensive.

But thanks for talking crap all the time, it makes this camera review very popular and I can see where this is going. Just like with the E-M5. Camera of the year!

> The thing with m43 is that it is heavily dependent on software correction, without it, the lenses are horrid. e.g. have you seen the 14/2.8 uncorrected??

First of all there are plenty of m4/3 lenses (such as the 2 45mms) that have either almost no or literally no correction applied. Secondly (as seemingly proven by performance results of the wide angles) it appears that it's often better to project a very sharp but distorted image and correct it digitally than it is to introduce softness trying to correct it optically.

Or do you care more about the "purity" of optical correction rather than the quality of the final image? Remember that even the very well regarded Fuji X lenses use digital correction.

Why do people care? Precision corrected optical glass costs a lot more than running a picture through a math equation. If they're going that route, they should price their junk lenses accordingly. Remember, software correction isn't "free". They degrade the image in some way, be it resolution, noise, or some other form.

Second: Optical correction isn't in itself better than software correction. Both create a loss of contrast, resolution and noise/aberrations. Both are used to keep costs, weight and size of the lenses down. Sometimes optical correction will give a better end image, sometimes software correction will; as mentioned above, the end result is what matters.

Third: Optical corrections have been a necessity because of optical viewfinders, and if you're using a DSLR you'll want to use such lenses to give you the corrected view in your finder, but mirrorless cameras do not have OVFs so they have more freedom to choose how to correct the lens. For mirrorless there's no inherent disadvantage to software correction, but even so you often see a combo of the two in lenses for mirrorless.

That's why we see software correction for mirrorless. Not because they're junk or cheap, but because they're an option we didn't really have with DSLRs.

With a camera almost universally loathed (for its looks), the Pentax K-01. people express their disgust in the comment section and then they leave. End of story.

Here, it's different. They just don't express their opinion, they want to rally other people away from the camera. The E-M1 encroaches into the territory of higher end DSLRs, territory that used to be off limits to mirrorless cameras, and some feel threatened by it.

There's also a bit of a snowball effect too. As the camera gains buzz here in the comment section, the temptation is too great for posters with agendas to try to stop it. It only contributes to the amount of chatter here.

There is a segment of society that is naturally intolerant of anything different than what they prefer. That's basically what's going on here: "I don't use it, I don't like it, I will be intolerant of it, I will think of terrible things to say about it."

The weird thing is that, in the automobile world, cars come in all shapes, sizes, prices, and capabilities...and yet car enthusiasts are quite accepting and tolerant of all this variety. Not so much amongst camera enthusiasts, apparently. Pathetic.

Whats really sad though, is that no other art medium gets so destrought about their tools. Do potters call each other stupid for using this or that type of clay? Do painters infer that each other is foolish for buying so and so canvas due to the price? You only see these kinds of comments on technology sites and that may explain alot if you think about it. We didn't sit around and argue about film back in the film days if you catch my drift.

When posters talk FF image quality, I wonder what do they really mean?

The most famous, iconic images were shot on film with manual focus. Once we got past 6 megapixels, it was possible to make prints that were indistinguishable from film. If you want to quibble, I'll raise that comment to 12 megapixels.

Now we have 16 megapixel machines that can see in the dark, with stabilization that lets you hand hold at over a full second. Yet, for some reason you're quibbling over shades of perfection? Your favorite cam is more perfect than mine?

M43 now has auto focus that's as fast and accurate as a $6000 1DX or D4. Sealed bodies and lenses that weigh a fraction of the big gear, yet some want to quibble about differences in depth of field.

Guess what — medium format has a fuller frame than 24x36, and for a few photographers it's the right choice. But for a very few.

Open your mind and enjoy the incredible tools we get to play with in many different formats. Go out and make some images.

McFern - you're wrong. Musicians also are talking years about their gear.The GAS originally came from musicians - as a Guitar Acquisition Syndrome - much later it was translated into photography market as a Gear A.S. .

nerd2 "m43 is indeed a very good format for some usage patterns. Problem is some deluded people that keep preaching m43 'equals' FF system, and cannot take any criticism at all."- you just nailed it.

Thanks for proving my point about technology items Plastek. If you ever watched Bob Ross paint, he used the same colors again and again out of the hugh palet of colors available. Why? Because he was used to working with those colors and knew the results he would obtain. We did this in the film days with film, you chose and stuck with it. A new guitar and some lessons can teach a person to play the guitar but it does not make him a guitarist nor does buying "the Best" new camera make someone a photographer. No art can be learned on the intenet or in a video game.

$1399 price is clearly overpriced, even so if you consider the price of lenses.

I am a huge fan of 'normal' perspective, and used to mainly use APS body + 35mm 1.8 DX lens. Now am maintaining two systems, FF body + 50.8 and m43 body + 20.7. The biggest problem is that with m43, lens prices are grossly inflated for what you get. 20mm 1.7 is $400 lens. 35mm 1.8 for APS is $200 lens (with AFS focusing). 50mm 1.8D is dirt cheap, around $100. Also I don't quite like the deep DOF of 20mm 1.7 lens. There are other options like 25mm 1.4 or 25mm 0.95 MF, but they are bulky and costly, totally cost contradicting the very idea of m43 format.

And after forking {god only knows how much} cash for the FF body... you complain about $200 price difference of the lenses? all while these particular lens prices are still a magnitude cheaper than the prices of bodies?...

P.S. m43's "25mm 1.4" is not bulky (the 43's one is). It weighs more (and costs more, since it is made to Leica standards) but size is the same as the Sigma 2.8/19mm.

m43 is now my main go-around system (with 14-42X and 20mm 1.7). But old FF bodies like 5D or D700 are dirt cheap now (at least here in my country), so it actually makes more sense to keep a FF system for portraits than spending $900 on oly 75mm 1.8 and still get worse bokeh than FF one.

And both 35mm and 50mm nikkors (new ones) are sharp wide open, even at 1:1 magnification.

"b) Your comparison is flawed as the subject distance of two lenses are totally different (50mm FOV vs. 150mm FOV). You will get LESS DOF when subject is closer."

I was only referring to your previous comment when you compared how much more expensive a m43 system is for portrait to an FF system:

"keep a FF system for portraits than spending $900 on oly 75mm 1.8 and still get worse bokeh than FF one. both 35mm and 50mm nikkors (new ones) are sharp wide open"

I can only assume that you mean an FF body with 50 1.8 lens compared to a m43 body with 75mm 1.8. since you keep referring to it. the m43 combo will have better or just as good "bokeh" and less DOF than that FF combo, distance does not matter only composition/framing.

Contax actually made one (anyone still remember contax? :D) and it didn't work well as far as I heard. Also I don't think the limited movement allowed for the sensor can cover all the focusing ranges of many lenses. That said, the technology itself can be doable (just extension of in-body IS) and it can help using MF lenses a lot.

"…lenses designed for phase detection need to be able to race to a specified location very quickly, whereas contrast detection lenses need to be able to scan back and forth very quickly." (DPR – On sensor detection)--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An alternative to moving the lens is moving the sensor itself, as it was done by Panasonic and Canon in the so-called Piezo Autofocus used in prosumer camcorders in the 90s. In those cameras, the sensor was mounted on a piezoelectric actuator that moved forth and back with a frequency around 15 Hz. Despite using contrast detection, the piezo autofocus system provided almost instantly which direction the focusing in motor in the lens should rotate to reach perfect focus.

One can imagine that with the current technology it might be possible to design a high performance piezo autofocus for still cameras.

I'm curious as to the feel of this camera. In other words, is it all cheap plasticky feeling? I had the Panny G6 and didn't like it for that reason. I'm torn between the upcoming Panny GX7 and the EM-1. If the EM-1 had a flip-up EVF, that would be the deal-maker for it. I also wish it had a built-in flash, but I can live with the fact that at least the camera comes with one you can slide on. I don't use flash much, but when I need it, I want to have it real handy - like built-in - or at least not have to carry around anything too big or have to buy it separately. The other little niggle is that neither the GX7 or the EM-1 have a flip-out LCD - I like having that for selfies. As usual, nothing seems to have it all.

The E-M1 is about as far from 'cheap plasticky feeling' as you'll get in a camera this size. It's solid, all metal, and fully weather-sealed.
For selfies, just use Wi-Fi remote control from your smartphone.

Robin Wong now has photos taken from the original 43 lens with adaptor with EM1 on his robinwong.blogspot website. Worth checking out, and great photos with the high quality lenses. He comments on the speed of the 43 lens with EM1 including macro 50mm, 55-200mm and other lenses. Lots of image examples to see and read his user experience notes.

I am thinking that dpreview will have some more reviews on their own analysis in a later report and we look forward to any more info as it comes.

imaging-resource dot com (IR) posted some test photos on their website. Compared to DPR, I always felt IR has better more controlled test scenes. With DPR the apertures are all over the place (EM-5 @ 4.5, E-M1 @ 5.6) and when one downloads the raw files from DPR, the luminance levels seem off between cameras. In other words, the jpeg shown on the website test scene are likely corrected for exposure. I downloaded the test samples from IR and open them with Olympus Viewer 3 making sure the settings were exactly the same.

The E-M1 seems to require using 1/3 faster shutter speed to have proper exposure when compared to the E-M5. I assume it is a known fact that the ISO speeds on the E-M5 are off by nearly a full stop, so if the E-M1 requires a faster shutter speed, than the ISO values are likely closer to the real thing. When comparing both supposedly 6400 ISO images they appear similar, but if E-M1 is about 1/3 stop more accurate with ISO readings. That compounded with the histogram on the E-M1 being slightly more to the right, I am guessing the high ISO performance will be about 1/2 better.

there is no doubt about ISO cheating but it's not a full stop against other cameras. half stops maybe and it's about 1/3 stops in DPReview's tests (for not too high ISOs, and it swings between 1/3 and 2/3 in real world shooting).

Don’t trust DXO? If you own the E-M5, shoot with a camera that DXO says has accurate ISO at the same exact settings. The E-M5 will underexposed by 1-stop in raw, the jpeg will be closer because the jpeg engine pulls the shadows.

I trust DxO, but the fact that the camera ISO doesn't match the sensor saturation ISO isn't strange, as you know, they're not the same thing. Even if the over-cautious camera ISO on the E-M5 makes their JPEG look more noisy in comparison shots, that's simply the decision of the camera maker, balanced against the risk of the user inadvertently blowing the headlights.

P.S: Yabokkie, if Olympus is trying to cheat by making their JPEG look worse (underexposing plus pulling) then they're frankly doing it wrong.

I think the standard have two parts, one basic rule (the exposure) and the other technical detail (density curves) on top of it.

many are distracted by the film response curves which should be really decided by film makers, what will give the best performance when the film receives a certain amount light.

maker advertised ISOs should not be used as any base for comparison and we just make sure same EV be used and ignore camera ISO (unless there is a certain ISO value that provides better image quality, then we just use that one regardless of the ISO number).

"Sensitivity (ISO) in digital imaging seems to be the subject of quite a lot of confusion - it's becoming common to hear talk of manufacturers 'cheating with ISO.' So we thought it made sense look at why sensitivity appears hard to pin down, why we use the definition we do and how it's actually not as complicated as it can sometimes seem."

"cheating with ISO" happens when one camera produces grossly different exposures than majority of the cameras do on the same settings.

And that's exactly what both: Olympus and Fuji do in order to get their camera "look" better for people who are not aware of these practices. They just compare ISO 3200 to ISO 3200 while in fact it should be ISO 3200 to ISO 1600, or similar.

People who flaccidly try to equate amount of materials used in a lens to its price, are the same "thinkers" who think a Ferrrari should cost the same as an-150 truck.After all the F-150 has MORE materials in it - so it is "better", right?

FACT is, the smaller you make something excellent, the MORE it costs (almost universally).

The f 0.95 DOF tirade is also getting stale (well it was a year ago).I shot a theatre production this week, no DOF "issues" as imagined by pixel-peeping Bricks 'n' bazookas fans - none at all ...

To judge pictures instead of uninformed opinion:

At the link, select "performing arts", and "footloose", basically unprocessed except for density and a little NR ands I turn the camera NR off (better when there is smoke in the image).

Don't take this the wrong way, as these are all adequate, capable shots with nothing really wrong technically, but these pictures are all frankly uninteresting to me because nearly everything is in focus. I think a tighter shallow DOF would have made them more interesting IMO. Pictures need a sense of depth. I shoot aps-c and while for landscapes and scenes the extra dof is nice, but for portraits and people I'm always wanting less and less. I also prefer "bricks and bazookas" for other reasons too....

basically we want to know what work a product can do compared with others available on the market.

in case of photographic lenses, everything controlled by aperture will be always the same if the aperture size (diameter or area) is the same, regardless of the sensor format. and aperture size is a major factor that decides a lens value/price.

like it or not, DOF is a handy indicator of lens aperture. if all other conditions are the same, deeper DOF always means a lens that's darker/slower or stopped down and shallower DOF means one that's brighter/faster, again regardless of sensor format.

one should be able to see it easily in images from different camera lenses, from phone camera to medium format.

Like it or not, the range of DOF (that which is perceived to be focus) is relative to the size of the Circle of Confusion. Larger format, larger circle. Smaller format, smaller circle, and if one is not sure what that means, check with Zeiss:

COC is measured against the image frame, PH, PW, diagonal or sqrt(area) for different aspect ratios. traditionally we used to use 1/1300 diagonal for depth of field and diffraction limited aperture calculation.

in principle, all photographic effects should be measured against the image frame for that's what we call a photograph.

none of focal length, f-number, or ISO is measured against image frame so they have no photographic meaning (they can have if translated with other information).

It's impressive how many people are confused about comparing camera systems of different format. Also impressive that the same people seem to be unable or unwilling to comprehend what is very clearly presented here by yabokkie -- image quality is primarily determined by how much light is collected on a sensor (film, etc) by the lens and the efficiency of the sensor(basically how well it can count photons). Whoever wants to educate themselves a bit more read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

On a 4" phone screen perhaps? Of course, many are "crew cuts", as it is politically correct to get an image of everyone or "chance shots" as sometimes that is all you get. The detail in the originals, is excellent considering the light.

I don't use an 85/1.2 any more. Too heavy, too unwieldy to get unusual angle shots and quite soft until about 2.8, so in effect isn't really 'faster' at all. There's also the little matter of 1-1/3 stops lower shutter speeds = more motion blur.

Overall the EM-5 is a great tool for many jobs. It is also great for inexperienced models - so much less intimidating that I shoot it in preference most times. Being compact is often a boon.

@ ppastoris The thing is I don't think this is really true (Not Yabokkie with certain caveats he is correct) but the extent to which image quality is compromised doesn't matter, in normal lighting there is loads of S/N and DR even though other systems offer more, (however its measurably not far off Canon's APSC sensors), people do accept that, unless you are of the mindset or industry where more is always better.Image quality is not an absolute, is it good enough for the job. when i am appreciating a photograph I am not counting photons.

" iAlso impressive that the same people seem to be unable or unwilling to comprehend what is very clearly presented here by yabokkie -- mage quality is primarily determined by how much light is collected on a sensor (film, etc) by the lens and the efficiency of the sensor(basically how well it can count photons)."

Nice to see a camera that opens up great performance with some missing lenses in the micro four thirds lineup. Lenses like the superb 150mm (300mm equiv.) f/2.0. That and the 6 or 7 extra controls (providing direct access to everthing) over the E-M5 should make this one great camera.

Just concerning the fine detail in the M1 captures vs E5 - I am not really seeing here much of difference - contrary to my expectations. It makes me wonder as the M1 does not have AA filter and the E5 does.

Development of new Four Thirds lenses has ceased some years ago although production continues on the old designs. Eventually, production will stop as well.

As good as FT lenses were, things have changed in the last 10 years. M43 is more popular than FT ever was, AF with contrast detect (M43) can be as fast or faster than phase detection (FT) and M43 allows for smaller optics of equal or greater quality than FT.

And there's a heavily rumored Sony NEX FF system just over the horizon but be prepare to break the bank with an entry price of 3000 bucks with slow primes (F2.8 or slower) available initially.

Its true development has stopped on 4/3 lenses, but I think 4/3 lens owners would argue that they still have no equals out there in m4/3 land. Seeing as how the mount is abandoned, now would be the best time to buy them up since it seems olympus will at least support them on newer m4/3 bodies with pdaf. I know a few people that still use 4/3 glass on m43 cameras because they prefer the 4/3 glass. A bunch of people were really hoping for an e-7 because they have thousands invested in 4/3 glass and were promised repeatedly that they have a future. I wonder how they feel....

Just looking at the extreme amount of comments is telling. It seems there is a strong interest in m4/3, even if the time when just the right model to really take off is still to come.

One thing holding them back is the lack of pro use to aspire to. To my mind, with all the latest models offer, all they need are some very bright (f0.95-1.2), autofocusing affordable primes and there will be no need for using a larger format.

a 25/0.95 will get us the same result as a 50/1.8, be it angle of view, light gathering capacity, depth of field, or diffraction limit ... every photographic effect as a result of such a spec, with no exception.

yabokkie is just helping you and others to be a bit more rational. Knowing that e.g. 25 f/0.95 + m43 camera will give you exactly the same pictures as 50 f/1.8 + full-frame does help you make better purchasing decisions.

Had the market been more rational and therefore been pushed in the right direction we'd possibly already have small full-frame cameras (just like in the film days) with inexpensive high quality lenses instead of the current situation of inexpensive m43 bodies with extremely expensive m43 lenses for what they equivalently are (like $1000 for 24-80 f/5.6 equivalent lens that Olympus has just released).

2 rikyxxx: Not sure who is obsessed here :).. FF is just *by convention* a convenient frame of reference for different format systems. Why do you think people call e.g. a m4/3 25mm lens a "50mm FF equivalent"? Most people aren't comfortable with angle of view numbers.

Just the same way using equivalent f-numbers makes it easy to compare DoF and light-gathering capacities of lenses between the systems. Knowing that for a given angle of view e.g. m4/3 f/1.4 is equivalent in terms of DoF and how much light it gathers to FF f/2.8 and in turn to APS-C f/2 makes it super easy to compare what system has the best price / capabilities relationship for you.

Lastly, knowing that roughly imaging noise depends on ISO and sensor size as ISO*(crop factor)^2 makes it easy compare noise of e.g. a m4/3 sensor vs APS-C vs Full-frame. E.g. if your m4/3 camera has ISO 200-25600 then the noise it produces will be similar to the noise for APS-C at ISO 400-51200 or FF at ISO 800-102400.

had you spent more of your time taking picture instead of annoying people with things they already know (it doesn't take a lot of time multiplying a number by 2) you'd know that what impact most a lens price is its quality, both optical and build.

Saying that a lens shouldn't cost 1000$ (that will probably become 800$ quite soon) because of its FF equivalent aperture is just stupid.

I think that people are missing it when they complain about the $1399 price point. It's a bargain.

Ming Thein has a very interesting post that shows how the OM-D E-M1 is most correctly compared to the Nikon D4. Same resolution, similar build quality, similar focus speed and accuracy. The D4 has much better video modes, but seriously, nobody buys a D4 to shoot video anyway. It's a still machine.

He also proves that the 5 axis IS is better than anything that Canon or Nikon has done in the lens. His gallery of 1 and 2 second handheld images is pretty amazing.

I know there is a lot of love by the fanboys for FF sensors (I make my living with a 5D3 - so I'm not one of them) but from what I'm seeing, I could use the new E-M1 to replace 95% of the shots I make with the 5D3.

Yes yes yes. That is exactly the point. Some will want to carry all the weight and that's fine, but there is nothing wrong with choosing lighter. Beautiful photos can be made with this camera as they can with any of the other manufacturers. Photography happens in the connection between the place between the ears and the place where we feel what we see. So there is nothing wrong or demented about choosing a smaller hammer. It doesn't matter how much horsepower or camera has or whether it was made by Ping or Calaway.

Yes! I don't get why folks complain all the times about sensor size. EM-1 is still cheaper than cheapest entry level FF cameras. But instead of cripped low end functionality it's equipped with premium features.

Fe. EOS 6D is only better at high ISO and has little bit more resolution. When comparing about EVERY other technical aspect it seems to be much worse camera. X-sync speed of 1/180s is a joke today (1/320s with EM-1) and 4.5 fps is no match for 10 fps with EM-1. No IBIS for legacy lences, no wifi, non tiltable screen, worse weather sealing and what is important for photographer: less customization options than EM-1.

Like a painter, photography is the end result of how a person conceive, see and interpret what he want to capture as a photograph. Whatever camera he use are just tools to make it possible.

A full frame DSLR has its advantages as well as its limitation. In some situation, a Micro 4/3 camera has its advantages. It is smaller and lighter which is very useful for travel to difficult places. If one is not printing bigger than 24" x 16", there is very little difference between one taken by a Micro 4/3 compared to a full frame camera.

In photography, ultimately, its the content or the image that one captured is the star.

For those looking for excellent bokeh, using the Oly 45mm f1.8, the 75mm f1.8 and the Voightlander 25mm f/0.95 are great choices.

DarkShift: EOS 6D has WiFi... Bought mine 2 weeks ago. Shooting with 600mm F/4 MkII. Just paid for it all in one shoot. Some of the best images I've captured. I will not go to Olympus as they will not be here in 5 years. Someone will have to buy them to save them.

Comparison with D4 is an absolute joke. I'd prefer D7100 over OMD at any moment (larger sensor, more MP, faster continuous shoogin with AF, C-AF actually works, same weather sealing and good enough control)

"Ming Thein has a very interesting post that shows how the OM-D E-M1 is most correctly compared to the Nikon D4. Same resolution, similar build quality, similar focus speed and accuracy."

Sorry, but that is incredible BS. At $1,400, Olympus SHOULD HAVE made it competitive with D4 at least in focus tracking speed (up to 10 fps on D4), but blew the chance, instead coming under 70D/k-5/D7100 (7 fps), at higher price. And it is yet to be seen how reliable the AF system is in low light, after all, with only 1/16 of pixels in a given focusing point (zone) working for PDAF, it simply gets very little light.

I don't understand that hype around M43 cameras. For example I can see noise on ISO 200 images. EOS M's (which I own) ISO 200 is noise free. I don't even mention bokeh - EOS M is much better here due to a bigger sensor.

Regarding lenses, there are a few good prime lenses, but come on, 450 bucks for 25mm/1.4? Even Canon 50/1.4 is cheaper! And there is also much cheaper Canon 50mm/1.8 which is also great, not mentioning 40mm/2.8 (also superb lens, for only $200). I was looking for a good travel zoom lens, and there is one: Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8, it costs only...$1300. I can buy Canon 24-105/4L IS for LESS. So where are those high quality and cheap M43 lenses?

Thanks for the link. Really nice comparison. The M1 looks really superior to M5 in lots of photographic results. Although the price tag is quite tough (but justified). At least for me who doesn't make living out of it. Gotta see if oly comes with lite/mini version of M1, I'm still enjoying my e-pl1 until then :)

@kbryd: I don't suppose you will find same materials in 'kit' lenses and high grade lenses. The special materials (like low dispersion glass, higt antireflex coatings, aspherical shapes ...) ARE expensive. For example I have paid EUR300 just for my two plastic lenses for my glasses (yes that's freak'n 150 per glass) - you can get both lenses for EUR50 if made from glass, even cheaper without antireflex, but optical quality won't be excellent.I've moved from my kit lens (40-150) to zuiko 50-200 and the difference if visible.

Why do Americans -- and, yes, I am one -- so doggedly insist that a "proper" camera be shaped like an SLR? I read about the cheap, plastic, hollow SONY a3000 (for example) and I almost feel pity for the major camera manufacturers. The evidence of their marketing research must be inescapable. (The irony is that Yoshihisa Maitan, the original designer of the Olympus OM-1 and the PEN, was an innovator who followed his own instincts; now, decades later, Olympus slavishly follows his precedent with nary a step out of line.)

It frustrates me that American shoppers are so unsophisticated that they can be enthralled by form alone, without regard to function. (I will exempt those of us who follow DPR inasmuch as, ipso facto, we are concerned with substance.) Just as it shames me that I can see the evidence of American ignorance in a much broader context every time I pick up a newspaper.

Looks aside, I really, really want this camera, but there's no way I can afford it! It is quality!

It is a common misconception here and you have succumbed to it also. I don't know why so many think that Olympus and Sony are American companies. I guess the people who think that are very provincial and don't realize that there is a big, wide world out there. Olympus and Sony are Japanese companies.

Say what? No, I must have been unclear myself. I am indeed a great fan of Japanese-designed, Japanese-MADE gear! In fact, I have a whole closet full of old 1970's Nikon equipment that I cherish most deeply. (It's the newer, made-in-Thailand, Nikon stuff that I usually find disinteresting.)

Maybe people prefer SLRs. Some people even prefer view cameras. The SLR has become the dominant form for decades because it has no equal. EVFs are getting close, but still cannot match a DSLR in terms of response, resolution, and low light usage. Composing at night is so much easier through a bright pentaprism IMO. So I guess I'm just an unsophisticated american who prefers an optical path to the lens. BTW, JAPANESE companies design these cameras. Clearly the SLR has demand in Asia too...

that all said this is a nicely designed camera. choice is a good thing.

Arrgghh! I was bemoaning the fact that American camera shoppers are so entranced by form over function, as evidenced by the popularity of cameras with a "faux" appearance. American shoppers -- disproportionately -- DON'T LOOK BENEATH THE SKIN. What part of that don't you understand?

Never mind. Forget it. It's clearly a thought "too far" for some of you people.

It's probably the same kind of thinking that influences some bikers in buying an Enfield or a Harley rather than a machine that to them looks more like some kind of mechanised stick insect. Classic designs will always remain attractive, especially to veteran users who feel comfortable with the familiar design and layout of controls.

The A3000, E-M1, and E-M5 are sold in countries all over the world. For some reason you seem to think these cameras are designed by Americans and only sold in America. Actually, I think I read that the E-M5 is more popular outside of America.

Byron, your motorcycle analogy is a good one: Look at all the crap that's been produced by an industry trying too cater to the poseur "cruiser" crowd. (I ride a Triumph -- an OLD Triumph!)

Henry, I sincerely hope you're right that the U.S. is not that important in driving camera design. It's just that I am so tired of reading in a camera's specifications that it is "SLR" style, or "Rangefinder" style -- when it's neither!If you were around in the old days, you too would be offended by the current vogue of camouflaging a camera in wholly inappropriate garb. It's a waste of resources and it bespeaks an inflexibility imposed by marketers that's inherently at odds with innovation.

You wrote: "Why do Americans -- and, yes, I am one -- so doggedly insist that a "proper" camera be shaped like an SLR?" The E-M5 is one of those cameras shaped like an SLR yet is even more popular outside the U.S. You seem to be attempting to make a very muddled, confused point. I still can't make heads nor tails of it since you are all over the (world) map. :-) Oh well, I suppose you know what you mean. lol

Okay, I think I see your point now in your latest post. Your OP got all confused trying to make some sort of statement about Americans when it is actually Japanese camera companies and Japanese designers that you are upset with. Yes, I have been using cameras a long time and I, also, don't care for non-SLR cameras that have been made to look like SLRs and in so doing have worse ergonomics than would be possible. The Panasonic GX7 looks good to me. The NEX 7 also. The E-M5 has very disappointing ergonomics and almost all of that is because Olympus wanted it to look like a miniature OM-1. I have an E-M5 and I wrote about this well more than a year ago:

More about gear in this article

Olympus has released a major firmware update for two of its OM-D cameras as well as the PEN-F. It adds support for Profoto's TTL flash system and also brings numerous new features and bug fixes. Read more

The new Olympus OM-D E-M1 II is quite a camera. Capable of shooting at up to 60fps at full-resolution, and packing high-bitrate 4K video and in-body stabilization, the E-M1 II is a powerhouse. But if you already have an E-M1, is it worth the upgrade? Find out

Olympus unveiled the details of two fairly significant firmware updates, both of which will be available for download, for free, come November. The flagship Olympus OM-D E-M1 will receive firmware version 4.0. while the not even one-year-old OM-D E-M5 II will receive firmware version 2.0. Read more

Olympus has announced that it is is producing a new limited edition 'Titanium' OM-D E-M5 II camera. The Titanium E-M5 II will offer all of the same features and specs of the regular version, with its top and bottom plates swapped out for dark metallic versions that match those of the OM-3/Ti from 1994. Worldwide, 7,000 copies of the Titanium model will be made, though how many will be available in the US is yet to be announced. The company is also readying firmware updates for both the E-M1 and E-M5 II, related mostly to underwater shooting. Read more

Latest in-depth reviews

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

360 photos and video can be very useful for certain applications (as well as having fun). The Vuze+ is an affordable 360 camera that supports both 2D and 3D (stereo vision) capture, and might be the best option for someone wanting to experiment with the 360 format.

The Mikme Pocket is a portable wireless mic with particular appeal to smartphone users looking to up their game and improve the quality of recorded audio without the cost or complexity or traditional equipment.

The 90D is essentially the DSLR version of the EOS M6 Mark II mirrorless camera that was introduced alongside it. Like the M6 II, it features a 32MP sensor, Dual Pixel AF, fast burst shooting and 4K/30p video capture. It will be available mid-September.

Latest buying guides

If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.

Whether you're hitting the beach in the Northern Hemisphere or the ski slopes in the Southern, a rugged compact camera makes a great companion. In this buying guide we've taken a look at nine current models and chosen our favorites.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

Whether you're new to the Micro Four Thirds system or a seasoned veteran, there are plenty of lenses available for you. We've used pretty much all of them, and in this guide we're giving your our recommendations for the best MFT lenses for various situations.

Blackmagic has announced an update to Blackmagic RAW that adds support, via plugins, to Adobe Premiere Pro and Avid Media Composer. Blackmagic also announced a pair of Video Assist 12G monitor-recorders with brighter HDR displays, USB-C recording and more.

Sony has announced the impending arrival of its next-generation video camera system, the FX9. The full-frame E-mount system is set to be released later this year with a 16-35mm E-mount lens to follow in spring 2020.

The Canon G5 X Mark II earns a Silver Award with its very good image quality, flexibility and the overall engaging experience of using the camera. However, if you need the very best in autofocus and video, other options may suit you better. Find out all the details in our full G5 X II review.

The Fujifilm X-A7 is the newest addition to the company's X-series lineup. Despite its relatively low price of $700 (with lens), Fujifilm didn't skimp on features. Click through to find out what you need to know about the X-A7.

The entry-level Fujifilm X-A7 improves upon many of its predecessor's weak points, including a zippier processor, an upgraded user experience and 4K/30p video capture. It goes on sale October 24th for $700 with a 15-45mm F3.5-5.6 kit lens.

Robert Frank's unconventional approach to photography and filmmaking defied generational constraints and inspired some of the most influential artists of the 20th century. He passed away today at age 94.

All three devices offer a standard 12MP camera plus, for the first time on an iPhone, an ultra-wide 13mm camera module. The 11 Pro and 11 Pro Max also retain the telephoto camera of previous generations.

Phase One's new XT camera system incorporates the company's IQ4 series of digital backs with up to 151MP of resolution and marries them to a line of Rodenstock lenses using the new XT camera body. The result is an impressively small package for one of the largest image sensors currently on the market - take a closer look here.

Phase One has announced its new XT camera system, which includes an IQ4 digital back, body (made up of a shutter release button and two dials) and a trio of Rodenstock lenses. The company is marketing the XT as a 'travel-friendly' product for landscape photographers.